India’s Medium Combat Aircraft

In August 2008, right about the time the Indian Air Force had decided to officially kickstart procedures to get the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) off the realm of theory, then Chief of Air Staff Fali Major happened to bump into DRDO chief M Natarajan and then HAL chairman Ashok Baweja at an industry suppliers function in Bangalore. The Chief was mildly irritated that both Baweja and Natarajan had provided media sound-bytes and interviews suggesting that the MCA would have “fifth generation technologies”. He impressed upon both gentlemen, over tea, that if the MCA went the LCA way, it would be not just unacceptable to the air force, but an act of criminal disregard for the country’s security. “Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane. That is the job before you,” he said.

Two months later, in October 2008, the name of the MCA programme was changed (on recommendation to the Secretary, Defence Production) to “Next Generation Fighter Aircraft”, though MCA continues to be used alternatively without any particular distinction.

As per official documentation by the IAF, it wants the MCA to be a twin-pilot configured multirole stealth aircraft capable of “close air support, all weather interception, air defence suppression, long-range strike, electronic attack, limited command & control and reconnaisance” — that’s the profile from an official IAF wishlist to the ADA last year. That might roll right off the air force’s tongue, like off a brochure, but they’re deadly serious. Putting all speculation to rest when it officially began dialogue about the MCA in 2008, the IAF said it was not willing to look at a strike aircraft with other capabilities. It wants a fully multirole (preferably, swingrole) aircraft for the job.

As we speak, a joint committee of several bodies involved with the NGFA is finetuning the configuration of the final jet, before work begins on building a tech demonstrator, three prototype vehicles and two production series trial jets — the wind tunnel model unveiled at Yelahanka in February 2009 is largely what the aircraft will look like, though there are three other variants that have not been displayed yet. A twin-engine delta planfrom version, which was a direct derivative from the LCA, has since been shelved — low observable requirements demanded a fully new airframe approach, which finally ended in the design that people got to see at Aero India 2009. While the wind-tunnel model, fabricated by a Bangalore-based engineering firm, is the product of an ADA/HAL study, there will be dramatic changes yet to the aircraft’s intakes (utterly radar friendly, according to the IAF), vertical stabilisers and dorsal section, say sources.

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik, in his first interaction with the ADA last year, seemed to nitpick on indigenous radar capability, more than anything else when it came to the topic of the MCA. Sources say he was deeply incensed when given a brief on the Multi-mode Radar (MMR), pioneered by the Electronics Research & Development Establishment (LRDE) for the LCA Tejas programme. In a chat with the director of the ADA, he said the next aircraft that the agency designed and built, needed to be centred around an Indian active array combat radar. In fact, the LRDE has already proposed a second radar (deriving from the MMR) for the MCA, with technological spin-offs currently being gleaned from its partnership with Israel’s Elta. But Naik didn’t buy that. He said it didn’t matter what the DRDO was learning from who at this stage. When it came down to putting the nails in, he said he wanted a fully Indian radar on the MCA.

While configuration fructifies, the following work has begun on the MCA in full earnest: DARE, Bangalore has appointed a special team to begin identifying avionics and cockpit packages for the first prototype vehicle, and will supply this in published form to the ADA by July 2010. This will include cockpit electronics, cockpit configuration, man-machine interface, mission console systems and computers/software with a focus on data fusion and modular architecture. The LRDE will, in about the same time frame, provide a separate project proposal for an all new radar, to be re-designated for the MCA, as a derivative of the MMR currently being completed with technology from Israel’s ELTA. LRDE will independently look in the market for a partner for active array technology, though it communicated to ADA in June 2009 that it had sufficient R&D available to build a reliable AESA prototype with assistance from Bharat Electronics Ltd and two private firms based in Hyderabad.

There is a collossal amount of work going on as far as materials is concerned for the MCA/NGFA. With the IAF unmoving in its demand for an aircraft that has stealth characteristics built into it from the drawing board forward, the DRDO has powered teams within its materials laboratories in Pune and Hyderabad to come up with new composities, low observable materials fabrication techniques, and of course, radar-absorbent control surface aggregates, airframe materials and paints. This is, of course, completely separate from design characteristics, including internal weapons, fresh leading edge innovations and a sustainable stealth maintenance footprint.

The most crucial part of the programme is of course the engine. The Kaveri-Snecma turbofan is being counted upon vigorously to be ready to power prototypes of the MCA by the middle of this decade. There is no Plan-B just yet as far as engines go. However, technologies such as single crystal and nickel-based superalloys in turbofans are still some way off as far as Indian development is concerned — the IAF wants the use of both to be a given in the engines that power the MCA.

According to the ADA, the government will look to purchase upto 250 MCAs when its done and ready — not just as a replacement to the MiG-27s and Jaguars, but to complement the MMRCA fleet that will hopefully be half-inducted by then. A proposal in 2008 suggested that the MCA be used as a technology feeder platform to the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), but after hectic representations by DRDO and HAL, with support from the IAF, it was finally decided that the MCA would continue as a fully separate aircraft programme.

Kartik

Thanks for this article that gives us a heads-up on what is happening in this program..I hope that the IAF doesn't make the mistakes it made the first time around for the LCA, by simply stating its requirements and then not doing any Project Management at all.

If this project has to succeed, it requires that the customer, IAF and the DRDO's R&D establishments, the program management house, ADA and the production house, HAL will need close synergy. closely tracking developments in this program will give the IAF a feeling of ownership for the NGFA, something it lacked sorely till recently for the LCA where they were detached and simply thought of it was a tech demonstrator that would eventually die out. And from the perspective of ADA/DRDO/HAL, it will give them insights into operational requirements, IAF's technical expertise and any changes to the ASRs required will be communicated quickly instead of being done after the design has begun.

Also, do you know whether any foreign collaboration is being sought or not ? I mean, Saab has expressed interest in joining a 5th generation fighter project in both South Korea and India. taking Saab's engineering expertise and making them a partner would give tremendous advantages to India and ensure that the timelines are met, and realistic timelines are set, not just some wildly underestimated ones. It will also bring in another risk-taking partner, that way reducing the risk for Indian partners alone. I would really appreciate it if you could write another follow-on article on the NGFA (MCA) with more details in this regard.

fighterclass

Anonymous

You luckky B@$t@rd,just got saved your a$$ .I was getting ready to kill you tonight if you fail to put the article down.

A lot of insights which matches well with my sources.

My 2 cents,for FGFA,Indian collaboration will be mainly centred in avionics and composites.Definitely the work share will be put into MCA. There were few modles already tested in wind tunnel including the tail less delta wind and differential intakes,……

Certainly MCA will turn up as one of the best fighters designed in this decade. MCA will definitely live upto the expectations with user taking the due responsibility in the project from the wind tunnel testing stage.MCA will awake all the hidden metalurgical industries and other electronics industries in india. P.S: One indian private sector known to you all for its effort in rebuilding the defences came up with a revolutionary technology which I donot intend to put that up in public before it becomes official.They wanted to be part of the development from the initial stage.

I cant say that this MCA will replicate a FGFA, but MCA will be a trend setter for indian industry.

Anonymous

Anonymous

Now that is the most worrisome part – am sure the airframe designers have a LOT to learn in terms of LO/VLO/Stealth, but some of that will come from FGFA learnings. The toughest part will definitely be getting Snecma to provide SCB and high TeT transfer AND for our folks to be able to pick that up and run.

We'll give it 5-7 years for the first prototype, and another 7 for induction provided the IAF learns to work with DRDO agencies.

Anonymous

Hope that they don't rely on foreign help much, especially when it comes to the important parts. This is what slowed LCA much. I also hope that this project is taken seriously right from the beginning. I also hope that this project is well funded from the beginning.

I must say this is a wonderfully put together report. Kudos for a very well written piece.

So the process for the MCA / NGFA has formally begun in earnest.

The few worrying aspects are the ones which plagued the LCA program too1. The Radar2. The Engine.

It is sad to see that these aspects are still unresolved after so much time and money. If in 2010 we are still talking of developing single crystal blade tech and Nickel alloys, I wonder when DRDO does come up with these techs where will the most advanced engine manufacturers be?

Good to see that the IAF wants a completely Indian AESA, I have always felt that the defence forces will be the first to accept domestically built products, if the tech and the build quality is right. They tasked with an unforgiving task of defending the nation won't compromise.

I must say this is a wonderfully put together report. Kudos for a very well written piece.

So the process for the MCA / NGFA has formally begun in earnest.

The few worrying aspects are the ones which plagued the LCA program too1. The Radar2. The Engine.

It is sad to see that these aspects are still unresolved after so much time and money. If in 2010 we are still talking of developing single crystal blade tech and Nickel alloys, I wonder when DRDO does come up with these techs where will the most advanced engine manufacturers be?

Good to see that the IAF wants a completely Indian AESA, I have always felt that the defence forces will be the first to accept domestically built products, if the tech and the build quality is right. They tasked with an unforgiving task of defending the nation won't compromise.

the terminator

Hi Shiv,A very good article indeed on the MCA/NGFA. Comments by Karthik is also worth for its insight.

However for this project to fructify, project management goals have to be set firmly with emphasis on delivery on time.

If inhouse relevant technology is not available, it is prudent to look for a reliable foreign partner, at least for critical technologies on a JV basis. The Saab firm have considerable expertise in the design and production of good combat aircraft. They also have access to cutting edge technology of other nations. On top of it they do not demand political milage unlike some others.

The IAF should not only play its part as the end-user. It would be a good idea if it could second officers to co-ordinate and synergise the whole operation with the Defence Minister as the head of the whole operation. Any other lesser official from the MOD would be taken for a jolly good ride by the babooos in ADA,DRDO and HAL who have the penchant to boast but not the capacity to deliver. The LCA is a good example.

I don't see what's the point of this plane. We have 5th gen FGFA, then MRCA and LCA. That takes care of the three types that IAF needs. What exactly is this program going to serve? Also, the MMRCA is going to give us critical ToT (hopefully!!!), so this program should be done in quick double. Given that LCA is so Late I hope that MCA does not become Mahalate.

Hey what is the revolutionary technology you are talking about? if you don't want to reveal it then its ok. But, can u give us a hint atleast. Man, its like my head is exploding from keep thinking of it. Thnx in advance.

i have a few questions if you could answer-IAF and HAL has selected AL 31F 117S engine for its FGFA,choosing the same for MCA/NGFA would be more sensible as it would provide commonality with FGFA which would reduce cost of maintainence and also relying on a proven engine would not cause delay.what do u think?also according to u which a/c will win mmrca competition?and which engine will be chosen for Tejas mk 2?reply would be appreciated.

Anonymous

"Sources say he was deeply incensed when given a brief on the Multi-mode Radar (MMR), pioneered by the Electronics Research & Development Establishment (LRDE) for the LCA Tejas programme"

This is pure bunkum!!!! LRDE can not build airborne radars. it srewed up MMR along with HAL!!! its SV2000 supervision has no vision. dont put too glossy report before public on LRDE MMR capabilities. A clinical diagnosis always helps in identifying the disease!!!!!! By the way i am not that fu**ing buradaiah!!!!

I Hope this bird flies early and meets all requirements and drdo gets a chance to prove that indeed they they can meet deadlines while delivering a world class product for the services. MCA like aircrafts will really rule the skies in decades to come and if it has low radar signature it will play a decisive role in a low intensity conflict scenario, probably with our unfriendly neighbours , where I believe the Air Force will give them a taste of their own medicine in "MCA Way".Jai Hind.

Zenith

Anonymous

??? ???? LCA ?? ????? ???, MCA ?? ??? ?? ????. The technology base just isn't there, this is liek building castles in the air. Fix the LCA program and MCA will become easy.

The iaf is quick at critcising drdo but what contribution has the iaf made towards indigenisation these guys only want imported toys

Uncle ji why should IAF want to commit suicide by using typical DRDO HAL junk>? How about HAL/DRDO make items that match western counterparts in reliability and performance? In case you don't realize, IAF is not supposed to build weapons and systems, but to operate them. Why blame them for DRDO and HAL's failure?

Anonymous

All those advocating for roping in a foreign partner should realize that we are already pursuing a 5th gen fighter program with the Russians in the FGFA. So, what is the point in initiating another 5th gen program with another foreign partner?

The fundamental logic behind pursuing the NGFA/MCA project is to develop in house technologies and expertise in building an advanced fighter for the IAF. So, in that context the MCA/NGFA will be deemed infeasible/useless unless it incorporates 90-100% indigenous technologies. This is quite apparent from the IAF chief's attitude as well when he says that the radar should be 100% indigenous.

I am sure the endeavor of all the parties involved in the development of the MCA/NGFA will be to make it as much Indian as possible.

Anonymous

The MCA, when it comes out, will fill the low-end/high-volume/high-flexibility part of the IAF stable, just like the LCA is planned to do over the next few years. So that's where this is positioned with respect to FGFA. Having said that, I note that:

1. IAF is asking for too much! Don't the jokers know anything about gradually building technology / capability in the country? The larger the jump, the harder it's going to be for HAL/ADA to be successful.

2. MCA is just in the drawing board stage, so it won't be here anytime soon. 🙁

Anonymous

The MCA is not too much of a jump from a successfully completed LCA program.The new additions are AESA, Stealth, electronics, engines etc.These are all aspects that Indian scientists and engineers are addressing now. Either through tie ups / co development / TOTs, but the tech level is getting attained.

The LCA is 4 or 4.5 gen, the MCA can very well be a small but successful 5th gen fighter. I guess the MCA will fulfill more like the role that the LCA will play (Point defence 5th gen fighter). But clearly we need to know more about the MCA before we can comment more.

Anonymous

those saying that pvt companies are great and will do the task on time should realize that pvt companies have such success with their current products (i.e car etc) because they can get assistance from foreign players when they want …they just add that to cost of your product ….ask them to design weapons systems…and they wont get that support…they might form a JV with that foreign company..thats a different story..

Anonymous

Criticizing DRDO is a simple thing,what one shouldnt need to put more effort/energy for doing so.But we should put some effort/energy to take a look at what these folks in DRDO doing while spending our tax payers money.

I do share the equal right with my other 600 million taxpayers in this country.Hence I took the pain to see whats happening behind the curtain.OF the most high end and strategic labs among the 52,the people you see who work there day and night with no mention of week days/week ends/festival holidays or what ever –they are getting a meagre 1/10th or 1/20th of what their counter parts outside the country are getting paid for the same or even less work.

These few folks down here are not looking at the money they are getting paid,but they are looking at immortalizing the countries status in the known world. They are not after those high end luxuries,most of the time they had to work in a non- AC work shop while their counter parts with even less degrees and knowledge works in AC cabins and commute in a company sponsored luxury car.

These few folks are those of high nationalist values unlike those who ran after foreign cos for few extra bucks while putting their country down.I would take every nut and bold designed and developed by the folks as a value added product ignoring all the rhetoric.I humbly request those with Indian blood to NOT criticize DRDO/BARC or any of the folks in that particular organization.HOw would it be DRDO mistake ,if bureacrats take money from foreign cos and manuplate the test results?

Since you dont have guts to blame them, you always look for the scape goat? i.e DRDO?

Bower

India is not represented just by DRDO. India is also represented by Wipro, Tata, Ambanis, Infosys etc. – world class organizations with world class products. They, therefore, should have equal rights to help strengthen India's defense. So don't try to blame people who question the efficiency of an organization like DODO by labelling them unpatriotic. The aim of the defense forces is to win a war – doesn't matter it is won by local or foreign maal. In same manner, industrial aim of the country is to produce a system or systems: BOTH on time and of world class quality- doesn't matter its made by local experise or by imported one. I not only blame government but also the psych of people like you- who blindly stick to singular views on the rest of the world. Tata Nano wouldn't be possible without help from british axle makers and italian design hourses- nevertheless it is an Indian car. Boeing planes have parts made in china, India, etc. Still it is an American product.Coming to the salary issue- if an organization is world class; it will pay its employees world level salary: ask Tata how much they paid the desingers of Nano. The trouble is with the organization, not with its people: ADA, NAL, OFB. DRDO etc – are paper tigers – if they are open to competition, they will shut down in a short time.

Anonymous

@ KArtik "something it lacked sorely till recently for the LCA where they were detached and simply thought of it was a tech demonstrator that would eventually die out".Come on – you are too quick to blame the IAF for not exerting adequate supervision ???? For Chrissake – how about holding DRDO / HAL acountable for not delivering on time as promised. The changing specs for the LCA were forced due to the unending timeline. You are happy to use Win7 and Office 2007, but want to force the IAF to stick to the equivalent of DOS and Wordstar bcos the "scientists" couldnt deliver on time?? Not fair.

Anonymous

@ Anonymous @ 1059 pm.While I fully appreciate your concern for the scientists and designers at DRDO / HAL, please understand that the comparison works both ways. While it is true that they are less endowed than their compatriots in the private sector – they are far better off than their customers, the Indian Armed Forces. The average user of a DRDO product gives his backside in some godforsaken corner of the country, literally laying down his life for the rest of us. Can you blame them for wanting the best possible equipment that he can get rather than make do with substandard stuff because it is "Indian" and we need to keep on supporting the poor old scientists till they get it right. As for the work environment, I leave you with one comparison – DRDO Bhawan vs any of the service HQ. Come on….all the Rs 10/- meals, and subsidized campuses do come from the Indian taxpayer, and he's NOT getting his money's worth.

Anonymous

while DRDO's success rate has not been what one would want to see….we have not set them easy tasks…we ask them to skip a generation when designing aircrafts…and for all the Tatas and Ambanis…do you think they develop every single piece of critical technology inhouse?? a lot of it is ToT…eg: Many parts of the Nano are made by Bosch!!the car was designed in Italy!!source:wiki

Wipro and Infosys…their world class product is software..whose behaviour doesnt change with temperature pressure or speed!!!

Anonymous

Even Koreans are planning to use initially EL/M 2032 Elta AESA readymade and EL/M 2052 derived Korean made radars for their KFX 5th gen fighters. And here we have PV Naik complaining and asking for wholly home made radar instead of learning step by step.

When 100% homegrown stuff fails to make mark, they say just get things done by collaboration etc. Now when LRDE is getting things done the collaborative way, PV Naik comes and lashes it.

Kartik

Boss, comparing the progress on the LCA to Windows 7 and DOS is BS to be very polite. the LCA's technologies are concurrent with what is being used today on the Boeing 787 structurally and its avionics components are on par with any other 4th generation fighter. its FBW is better than any given 3rd generation fighter that had FBW in the first place. get your facts correct before criticizing the LCA project. today if there is any one reason as to why there can even be an IJT delivered on time (except for Russian engine delays) and IAF backing for the MCA, its because the LCA built up the capabilities.

had they not gone for (in those days) futuristic technolgies, India would've built a JF-17 Bandar level fighter, basically 3rd generation, and inducted it in 1999-2000 or so.

and then the IAF would've said "what junk DRDO produces, when we could've gone and bought the Gripen C/D instead", and then say it doesn't meet our expectations and ask for composites, FBW, internal EWS, the works. basically we'd have inducted a couple of squadrons earlier, but we'd be going through a lot of effort bringing the LCA to a technology level on par with contemporary fighters.

oh and BTW, I don't use Windows 7, I use Vista, and it sucks. I want a reliable system with the basics covered. No need for fundoo graphics when you don't support drivers for so many softwares.

Abhiman

In my view, the IAF must pursue the indigenous MCA only, and fully abandon the PAK-FA that it intends to purchase from Russia. This is in order to avoid wastage of money by importing a Russian fighter, and also to develop the indigenous industry.

However, the biggest commitment by far has to come from the IAF, which has a poor record of being non-committal and lackadaisical in it's support of indigenous equipment. No matter what moralistic phrases AM Naik uses, he has to realize that the biggest commitment has to from from the IAF itself.

It is very easy to sign a cheque, and demand specs that are gleaned from foreign brochures. The IAF must finally learn to burn the midnight oil with DRDO and show more commitment.

Anonymous

FGFA is not NOT an Indo-Russian joint venture. It is 100% Sukhoi venture. India will only be a pure buyer of this plane n will collaborate with the modifications for the IAF requirement as done in the case of MKI. So, basically it will be FGFA MKI.

Anonymous

The DRDO is dealing with a whimsical agency, the IAF. They would be well advised to clarify everything in advance and in writing because every new chief will come up with something new every time they open their mouth. Even a layman will notice that their statements are contradictory. At one time they say that they need an aircraft that delivers results no matter the origin of the equipment. At another time they say it should have domestic equipment. They do not mind sacrificing precious resources produced with the sweat and blood of ordinary Indians on imports but comment adversely on the money spent on domestic developments. It appears that talking loosely has become a habit for them. Their hubris may prove very costly for the country unless corrected at an early stage.

Anonymous

DRDO should only develop products for those services which respect and trust DRDO. All else should be asked to survive on imports. Even though this advise is not in the interest of the country, there seems to be no way out while dealing with people who exhibit characteristics of neighborhood thugs.